The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003

[Stephanie]

Does anyone have or has anyone seen a photo of the crime scene? It allegedly looks similar to the black dahlia case (Elizabeth Short) I find this hard to believe.

It seems you and a few others who post on this thread only look at each aspect of the case at a time, as opposed to putting all the incriminating evidence against Luke together and seeing the whole picture.

I don't think any of us need to see photos to realise the gruesome nature of JJ's injuries as described in court.

[Stephanie]

Does anyone have or has anyone seen a photo of the crime scene? It allegedly looks similar to the black dahlia case (Elizabeth Short) I find this hard to believe.

And I'm unsure what relevance this has with regards the conviction?

[Stephanie]

They probably had a fair idea the very night after Jodi was murdered when they took him into the police station for questioning. It's a real shame we don't have access to the video of the police interview like we had in the Adrian Prout case.  Body language can be a great indicator of guilt to the trained investigator.

I agree. I'm also inclined to believe a transcript of the police interview alone, isn't the best indicator.

And whilst I know the way a suspect behaves when in a police cell/corridor/yard etc cannot be used as evidence in a court of law - I also believe this behaviour can help the arresting officers. And specifically comments they (The suspect) make whilst not being interviewed.

I think the public should be allowed access to at least parts of a convicted criminals police interview as I believe it would help us see the way these individuals behave under question. Again the Nathan Mathews interview was telling imo - same applies to Shauna Hoare who clearly contradicted herself during her interviews.

Body language, facial expression, tone of voice and other physical behaviours are a helpful indicator imo.

[Stephanie]

Normal psychological profile except that he insisted he was innocent, which appeared to confuse them somewhat.

But we only have your word for this and I don't believe you. The forensic psychologists who interview a suspect pre-trial don't concentrate their findings solely on what they learn from the individual they are interviewing. I'm sure they would have given their opinion on the evidence of witness statements and the likes.

Again, I don't believe "it confused them somewhat' as I'm sure most, if not all forensic psychologists are used to hearing claims of innocence, especially if the individual in question has pleaded not guilty. They are hardly going to offer up incriminating evidence to their assessor now are they.

[Stephanie]

I find it interesting that any professional psychologist would make a diagnosis on the basis of one poem, without any other information within which to contextualise that poem. He did not meet Luke, speak with him, examine him, ask him what he intended or meant when he wrote the poem etc etc...

And I agree, read from the point of view of maintained innocence, it makes sense that he is angry and vengeful, not only against those who have treated him so unjustly, but also against whoever killed Jodi.

I doubt the professional psychologist made a diagnosis on the basis of the one poem alone without considering other information available to them.

You see this it what you continually do. You give your spin interpretation on something like this which is totally misleading.

Yet it's you who makes the suggestion about the "power of the half-story" 

The power of the half-story.

And I don't agree that the poem shows a teenager who is angry and vengeful (At least not in the way you interpret it). It shows a teenager with a disturbed mind, even if you were to read it from the point of view of innocence. I would suggest this young teen needed help and intervention with regards his mental health.

[Stephanie]

Damn fine piece of academic research there. I mean, look, it even says:

Sorry, I digress, no I haven't seen the movie, and it wouldn't affect my thoughts on whether or not computer game violence has an impact on real life violence (any more than the claims that violent movies 20 -30 years ago "caused" specific real life acts of violence) because it's a movie - you know, fictional??

Why do bodies like the Video Standards Council or British Board Of Film Classification bother to rate these games/movies then?

And of course if you are referring to your own personal thoughts then it would suggest you are bias.

[Baz]

I agree. I'm also inclined to believe a transcript of the police interview alone, isn't the best indicator.

And whilst I know the way a suspect behaves when in a police cell/corridor/yard etc cannot be used as evidence in a court of law - I also believe this behaviour can help the arresting officers. And specifically comments they make whilst not being interviewed.

I think the public should be allowed access to at least parts of a convicted criminals police interview as I believe it would help us see the way these individuals behave under question. Again the Nathan Mathews interview was telling imo - same applies to Shauna Hoare who clearly contradicted herself during her interviews.

Body language, facial expression, tone of voice and others physical behaviours are a helpful factor.

He either was a suspect straight away or not, can't have it both ways.

I think the way they treated him that night shows that they did. I think that's worrying.

[Stephanie]

He either was a suspect straight away or not, can't have it both ways.

I think the way they treated him that night shows that they did. I think that's worrying.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say he was a suspect straight away or not and that I can't have it both ways?

From my knowledge and experience I would have thought anyone directly involved with Jodi would have been a suspect. Police usually start eliminating family members/boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wife's etc first.

I'm unsure what it is you find worrying? Worrying for Luke you mean?

[Baz]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say he was a suspect straight away or not and that I can't have it both ways?

From my knowledge and experience I would have thought anyone directly involved with Jodi would have been a suspect. Police usually start illuminating family members/boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wife's etc first.

Then why was he the only one taken in?

I'm unsure what it is you find worrying? Worrying for Luke you mean?

Worrying for the course of justice.

[Stephanie]

Worrying for the course of justice.

How so?

[Baz]

How so?

So many of these cases seem to start with the presumption of guilt and that can obviously be an issue for justice. I'm not saying that definitely happened here, I don't know enough about the investigation to be able to. But it does seem like there was a lot of attention placed on Luke immediately, focus no one else seems to have received.

[Stephanie]

So many of these cases seem to start with the presumption of guilt and that can obviously be an issue for justice. I'm not saying that definitely happened here, I don't know enough about the investigation to be able to. But it does seem like there was a lot of attention placed on Luke immediately, focus no one else seems to have received.

Give me a list of 2 or 3 cases you are referring to.

The police interviewed over 3000 people in this case. And as I've already pointed out, those closest to
jodi would have fallen under the header 'suspect' until eliminated. I also imagine the police saw something or sensed something about Luke that bothered them when they met with him that night. I'm sure  they had their reasons for asking him questions that night.

With regards the course of justice, as a member of the public, I would have expected Luke to have been one of the first questioned - based on the evidence adduced that Jodi was last seen on her way to meet with him on the path.

It would have bothered me if the police hadn't followed this up as soon as they were able.

[Baz]

Give me a list of 2 or 3 cases you are referring to.

The police interviewed over 3000 people in this case. And as I've already pointed out, those closest to
jodi would have fallen under the header 'suspect' until illuminated. I also imagine the police saw something or sensed something about Luke that bothered them when they met with him that night. I'm sure  they had their reasons for asking him questions that night.

With regards the course of justice, as a member of the public, I would have expected Luke to have been one of the first questioned - based on the evidence adduced that Jodi was last seen on her way to meet with him on the path.

It would have bothered me if the police hadn't followed this up as soon as they were able.

I don't have a problem with him being a suspect. Of course he should have been. I do have a problem with a 14 year old being treated that way without supervision.

Also it feels like other suspects did not get the same rigorous investigation.

[sandra L]

Police did not interview 3000 people. They originally claimed, via the media, to have taken 2000 statements - this later changed to 3000. Those statements included statements from all of the officers working on the case - e.g. "On Friday 3rd July, I was tasked with completing house to house enquires between X and Y address" is a "statement" for these purposes.

[Stephanie]

Police did not interview 3000 people. They originally claimed, via the media, to have taken 2000 statements - this later changed to 3000. Those statements included statements from all of the officers working on the case - e.g. "On Friday 3rd July, I was tasked with completing house to house enquires between X and Y address" is a "statement" for these purposes.

How does this differ? 3000 statements from 3000 people - including police officers? I wasn't suggesting 3000 suspects...

You appear to be being pedantic? How does the above help/support LM's claims of innocence?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SVyeBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT104&lpg=PT104&dq=luke+mitchell+murder+3000+statements&source=bl&ots=NVHRihV_uR&sig=QQ311uqrt6SQeXDr48IGGFqR4r8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFjdqLiqHJAhWEthoKHUHWDRgQ6AEIIjAD#v=onepage&q=luke%20mitchell%20murder%203000%20statements&f=false